Two Great Falls residents have filed a complaint against the city, alleging that the 2007 ordinance prohibiting chickens in all but one zoning area of the city was passed unlawfully, making their citation for owning chickens void.

Charles Bocock and Cheryl Reichert filed the complaint in district court last week after discussions with the city stemming from a February citation the couple received from city animal control officers because the couple has two chickens in their backyard, which are currently illegal in their zoning district.

The court has three years to formally serve a summons on the city and a summons has not yet been served, according to the city attorney.

That time period allows involved parties to attempt to reach resolution before going to court, city attorney Sara Sexe said.

The couple retained a lawyer who sent a letter Feb. 17 requesting a meeting with the city attorney and alleging that the city changed the ordinance as it relates to chickens in secret.

Sexe did meet with the couple’s lawyer, Lawrence Anderson, and sent a letter April 29 along with about 80 pages of documents refuting the couple’s claims.

Sexe said the couple didn’t appear in municipal court and the citation was about to go to warrant status, so the city dismissed the citation without prejudice, meaning the city could bring the case back.

Bocock and Reichert did not return a call to their residence Friday.

The dismissal gave Sexe more time to review the complaint, and in April, she informed Anderson that the charges would be reinstated.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs state that Bocock is a retired businessman and master gardener “who recently gained statewide recognition for his ability to successfully cultivate blueberries in our area (a challenge previously thought impossible)” and the “availability of fresh chicken manure is essential to enable Charles to successfully compost year-round, and the resulting compost forms the basis for his organic gardens.”

Bocock and Reichert state in their complaint that they seek to source their food locally and “produce as much of their own food as possible, while respecting the rights of their neighbors and their community to a quiet and healthful environment.”

But some neighbors aren’t too fond of their backyard chickens and animal control has been called to Bocock and Reichert’s residence on Prospect Drive five times since the chicken ban went into effect in July 2007.

In their complaint, Bocock and Reichert allege that the city’s blue ribbon committee that was appointed to revise the animal code met in secret and kept no minutes.

According to the city, the city clerk’s office was initially unable to locate those minutes, but later found them and provided information on how to locate them to Bocock and Reichert in 2015 and to Anderson in April.

In the June 3, 2005, minutes of the blue ribbon commission, the group “discussed allowing fowl to be kept only in suburban districts and limiting the number of birds that can be kept at a single residence.”

That’s consistent with what was proposed in 2004 for chickens in the city.

In a September 2004 Tribune story, the city’s liaison to neighborhood councils said the plan was to make it illegal to raise livestock in the city’s residential districts but not the suburban districts and change the definition of “livestock” to include “poultry and domestic fowl.”

That’s what happened in the revision of the animal code that was approved in January 2007.

Bocock and Reichert also allege that the livestock definition change to include poultry was added at the last minute, but according to city records, the definition change was included in all drafts of the revised code and those drafts were publicly available.

Banning chickens in all but the R-1 zoning districts was also mentioned in neighborhood council meeting leading up to the City Commission vote on the ordinance change, and was specifically mentioned in the Jan. 10, 2006, minutes of the Neighborhood Council 1 meeting.

A few years later, the City Commission directed planning staff to draft ordinances for the regulation of urban chickens and that ordinance would have allowed chickens in most residential zoning areas, but in April 2011, the commission rejected those ordinances and chickens remain illegal in Great Falls in all but the R-1 zoning area. Bocock and Reichert live in an R-2 zoning district, where chickens are prohibited.

The couple argues in their complaint that the chicken ban is haphazardly enforced, but the ban is enforced in all zones where chickens are prohibited, through enforcement is largely complaint driven.

The couple had chickens in the past and in 2009, a neighbor complained and the city instructed the couple to remove the chickens or face jail time, according to Tribune archives.

In those stories, the couple said they sent their chickens to a friend’s ranch west of Billings.

Since that time, the couple has procured more chickens and currently has two Welsummer hens, according to their posts on the Great Falls Urban Chickens Facebook page.

The couple argues in their claim against the city that the Montana Constitution grants them the right to “pursue life’s basic necessities, enjoying and defending their lives and liberties, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and seeking their safety, health and happiness in all lawful ways. Does the chicken ban pass muster under the strict scrutiny for constitutional challenges to statutes and ordinances?”

In response to Anderson’s February letter lodging that particular complaint with the city, Sexe wrote, “your clients are not prohibited from pursuit of any of the rights listed in Article II (of the Montana Constitution). Your clients are not even prohibited from owning poultry.”

The city code “only prohibits livestock from being housed in certain districts within the city,” Sexe wrote.

Other Montana cities, including Missoula, Kalispell, Billings, Bozeman and Butte, allow chickens within specific regulations and some require permits.